This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding a patent suit pending since 2005 was dismissed. The Court directed the Trial Court to ensure expeditious trial and strictly limit adjournments.
The Trial Court was directed to ensure expeditious trial and limit adjournments to not more than three per party during the hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
32 19.9.2023 Ct. 236 SB
C.O. 233 of 2012 CAN 1 of 2012 (not in file) CAN 2 of 2012 CAN 3 of 2014 CAN 4 of 2019
In the matter of : Sukumar Maity & Ors.
Mr. Dhananjay Nayek … for the petitioners.
2
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution merited interference given the Trial Court rejected a temporary injunction application.
What directions were issued to the Trial Court regarding the expeditious trial of the pending suit and limitation on adjournments.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukumar Maity & Ors.
Dilip Kumar Shaw
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
